MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Processes of care in curative therapy for gastric cancer: A RAND/UCLA appropriateness study.

2012· article· en· W2585634112 on OpenAlexaff
Savtaj S. Brar, Calvin Law, Robin S. McLeod, Lawrence Paszat, Lucy Helyer, Rajini Seevaratnam, Roberta Cardoso, Alyson Mahar, Lavanya Yohanathan, Alina Bocicariu, Natalie G. Coburn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of TorontoInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSunnybrook Health Science CentreDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCancerPerforationGastrectomyDiseaseDissection (medical)SurgeryLymph nodeGeneral surgeryResection marginRadiologyInternal medicineResection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

104 Background: Processes of care in curative therapy for gastric cancer are ill-defined, have significant variations and may impact patient outcomes. Methods: A multi-disciplinary expert panel (16 physicians, 6 countries) scored 595 scenarios using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Methodology. Appropriateness was scored from 1 (highly inappropriate) to 9 (highly appropriate). Median appropriateness scores from 1-3 were considered inappropriate, 4-6 uncertain, and 7-9 appropriate. Agreement was reached when 11 of 16 panelists scored the statement similarly. If a statement was agreed to be appropriate, it was given a necessity score in the same manner. Results: Open gastrectomy was considered appropriate for all patients and necessary for patients with N2-3 disease, while laparoscopic gastrectomy was appropriate for patients with T1-2 N0 disease. D1 lymph node dissection (LND) was considered appropriate for T1 N0 disease. For all others, D2 LND was considered appropriate and necessary. It was appropriate to assess at least 15 LN. Intraoperative pathologic assessment of the proximal margin was considered appropriate for gross margins <5 cm or T3/T4 lesions. If the margin was positive on frozen section, re-resection of the stomach or abdominal esophagus was considered appropriate for N1-3 disease and necessary for N0 disease. Curative resection was appropriate if a patient presented with perforation. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was considered appropriate for patients who presented with T1-2 N2-3 or T3-4 N0-3 disease with minor symptoms but not with major symptoms. Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy was considered appropriate and necessary for patients with T1-2 N1-3 or T3-4 N0-3 disease. No adjuvant therapy was considered appropriate for patients with T1N0 disease. Conclusions: The above criteria have been found to be appropriate and necessary for the curative treatment of patients with gastric cancer and may be used to improve processes and quality of care.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.161
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.349 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207